Why Libs do Not Deserve a Pass on Ethics Scandals

Lib TV Hosts Lawrence O'Donnell explained that Congressman Weiner and other Libs that get caught up in scandal deserve a pass because they don't preach against immoralities, but Republicans do preach and therefore they need to be held to a higher standard.

This argument is flawed for many reasons:

Not every Republican campaigns on moral issues, and I don't recall Democrats campaigning that having an affair is an acceptable thing. Therefore, why have different standards for Democrats vs. Republicans?

If having an affair or any moral shortcoming is ok, why do Democrat politicians mostly hide it and/or lie about it before it goes public? Obviously, it is wrong regardless how you are on the campaign trail. Therefore, if it is wrong, live up to the music when it hits the fan despite having a D after your name.

Just because a politician doesn't care about morals doesn't mean the nation needs to have in leadership people that are mocked worldwide and people that can be blackmailed to give up national security secrets in exchange for hiding their misdeeds (This is why it is important to know what exactly went wrong with Weiner's Twitter Account).

Wanting to shield our children from seeing perverted lifestyles or racy things at young ages, does not mean that Republicans have an issue that adults should do whatever they want in the privacy of their home.

Trying to live with morals does not make a person an Angel. Battling temptations daily and having shortcoming is the norm. As such, a person with moralsshould not lose the ability to campaign for a purer America or speak out when people in powerful or public office do things that are wrong. Judging the other person is wrong; speaking out against it is the right thing to do regardless one's own shortcomings.

My rabbis preach that people should be good Jews while these rabbis themselves sure have shortcomings (last I checked they are human). Regardless their own issues, we accept and grow through their words because we understand that it is a lifelong battle to live with standards.

Arguing that abortions is not a "Right;" being against government funding for Abortions, and opposing that Abortions should take place daily by the 100's, does not mean that in selective cases a Republican should not pay and/or approve thata family member should use this procedure.

Sometimes it is not the actual misdeed thatis the problem;it is lying to the public - who trusts you with their safety and money - that is at issue. This explains why Gingrich had the full authority and responsibility as Speaker of the House to hold President Clinton accountable for his public lies despite the fact that Gingrich had his own ethical shortcomings.

Do Libs suggest that cops cannot stop a speeding driver just because this very cop probably drove high speed this morning to be on time for work?

Observant Jews are forbidden to eat Pork; yet are permitted to earn a living off of it... This anecdote may not fit fully into this article, but it illustrates the concept that living to a certain standard does not mean a person loses his/her ability to have a say and/or a gain off of this thing.

Liberals try blurring ethical and morals standards to rid themselves of inner guilt for their own misdeeds, and also in a cheap effort to discredit opponents who rightfully try holding Liberal politicians to the standards that everyone needs to be held - regardless of party.

Lib TV Hosts Lawrence O'Donnell explained that Congressman Weiner and other Libs that get caught up in scandal deserve a pass because they don't preach against immoralities, but Republicans do preach and therefore they need to be held to a higher standard.

This argument is flawed for many reasons:

Not every Republican campaigns on moral issues, and I don't recall Democrats campaigning that having an affair is an acceptable thing. Therefore, why have different standards for Democrats vs. Republicans?

If having an affair or any moral shortcoming is ok, why do Democrat politicians mostly hide it and/or lie about it before it goes public? Obviously, it is wrong regardless how you are on the campaign trail. Therefore, if it is wrong, live up to the music when it hits the fan despite having a D after your name.

Just because a politician doesn't care about morals doesn't mean the nation needs to have in leadership people that are mocked worldwide and people that can be blackmailed to give up national security secrets in exchange for hiding their misdeeds (This is why it is important to know what exactly went wrong with Weiner's Twitter Account).

Wanting to shield our children from seeing perverted lifestyles or racy things at young ages, does not mean that Republicans have an issue that adults should do whatever they want in the privacy of their home.

Trying to live with morals does not make a person an Angel. Battling temptations daily and having shortcoming is the norm. As such, a person with moralsshould not lose the ability to campaign for a purer America or speak out when people in powerful or public office do things that are wrong. Judging the other person is wrong; speaking out against it is the right thing to do regardless one's own shortcomings.

My rabbis preach that people should be good Jews while these rabbis themselves sure have shortcomings (last I checked they are human). Regardless their own issues, we accept and grow through their words because we understand that it is a lifelong battle to live with standards.

Arguing that abortions is not a "Right;" being against government funding for Abortions, and opposing that Abortions should take place daily by the 100's, does not mean that in selective cases a Republican should not pay and/or approve thata family member should use this procedure.

Sometimes it is not the actual misdeed thatis the problem;it is lying to the public - who trusts you with their safety and money - that is at issue. This explains why Gingrich had the full authority and responsibility as Speaker of the House to hold President Clinton accountable for his public lies despite the fact that Gingrich had his own ethical shortcomings.

Do Libs suggest that cops cannot stop a speeding driver just because this very cop probably drove high speed this morning to be on time for work?

Observant Jews are forbidden to eat Pork; yet are permitted to earn a living off of it... This anecdote may not fit fully into this article, but it illustrates the concept that living to a certain standard does not mean a person loses his/her ability to have a say and/or a gain off of this thing.

Liberals try blurring ethical and morals standards to rid themselves of inner guilt for their own misdeeds, and also in a cheap effort to discredit opponents who rightfully try holding Liberal politicians to the standards that everyone needs to be held - regardless of party.